ThatGuyFromTheInternet:Tatsuma: From Watts vs. Indiana (1949) regarding whether you are obligated to bring a lawyer to someone interrogated under the public security provision:'To bring in a lawyer means a real peril to the solution of the crime, because, under our adversary system, he deems that his sole duty is to protect his client - guilty or innocent - and that in such a duty he owes no duty whatever to help society solve its crime problem.' and therefore you are not obligated to if you believe that this will hinder finding out said peril to society.

Nothing wrong there, so let's just all move on.

You're not exactly a big fan of rights for Muslims, are you?

IF there was reason to assume additional devices were planted putting the public in active danger. I would assume the law enforcement would act the same way to any person that uses these tactics regardless of religious attachment.

The justice system is about the process, if the cops/prosecution have no intention of using the information against him in court to begin with, and there is a legit danger, then there should be some public safety exception, but it should be limited, and the lawyer should be allowed to monitor the questioning via some mechanism.

HideAndGoFarkYourself:Triumph: But all the kid has to do is claim it's true. Then the onus is on the FBI to turn over every second of footage from the interrogations and prove otherwise. This kid's going to have defense attorneys lining up pro bono just to be the guy who got the Boston bomber case dismissed.

There is AMPLE evidence of his guilt in a multitude of crimes for which he'll spend the rest of his life in prison. If they throw out his interrogations, the cases won't be dismissed.

Do you people know how the criminal justice system works at all?!

it would only be interrogations that occurred prior to being provided with a lawyer, any of the evidence that otherwise links the guy to the bombs will still there. If the feds want, they'll give him the death penalty.

I thought they only "waived the Miranda" so they could get any information regarding possible locations of other explosive devices and other such immediate threat. When did they interrogate him on everything else?

Keizer_Ghidorah:I thought they only "waived the Miranda" so they could get any information regarding possible locations of other explosive devices and other such immediate threat. When did they interrogate him on everything else?

No, we are talking about that case, which has a legal precedent set in 1949 which authorizes this as perfectly legal.

It's just a shiat mix of Glenn Greenwald + The Guardian + Farkers who have no idea what they are talking about

I bet most complaining about this also complained about the search in Watertown.

Tatsuma:Keizer_Ghidorah: I thought they only "waived the Miranda" so they could get any information regarding possible locations of other explosive devices and other such immediate threat. When did they interrogate him on everything else?

No, we are talking about that case, which has a legal precedent set in 1949 which authorizes this as perfectly legal.

It's just a shiat mix of Glenn Greenwald + The Guardian + Farkers who have no idea what they are talking about

I bet most complaining about this also complained about the search in Watertown.

Wouldn't be surprised, considering the loads of "ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT ACTION!! PRECEDENT FOR CRUSHING THE CONSTITUTION!! OBAMA MEETING LATER TO DISCUSS MAKING THIS NATIONAL POLICY!! NAZIS SOCIALIST COMMUNIST MONARCHIST MUSLIM SECOND AMENDMENT JACKBOOTS!!" retards that have popped up since then. Everything is a Reptilian Vatican conspiracy to these idiots.

Tatsuma:From non-bindingdicta in a single-judge concurrence inWatts vs. Indiana (1949) regarding whether you are obligated to bring a lawyer to someone interrogated under the public security provision:'To bring in a lawyer means a real peril to the solution of the crime, because, under our adversary system, he deems that his sole duty is to protect his client - guilty or innocent - and that in such a duty he owes no duty whatever to help society solve its crime problem.' and therefore you are not obligated to if you believe that this will hinder finding out said peril to society.

Nothing wrong there, so let's just all move on.

... not to mention that the Supreme Court reversed the conviction in that case since they tortured a confession out of the guy.

Tatsuma:ThatGuyFromTheInternet: You're not exactly a big fan of rights for Muslims, are you?

This is an exemption that comes from 1949 and applies for everyone, not just Muslims, but keep pretending that it's somewhat racist to say that the FBI didn't break any laws by doing what they did. to no one since it wasn't actually in a majority opinion in the case.

tenpoundsofcheese:TheLalagah: Agreed. If he asked for a lawyer and was refused he should walk.

by that logic, if he asked for a diet coke with a twist of lime and they refuse he should walk.

you have no Constitutional right to have a lawyer when the police are questioning you.

you also don't have a right to a diet coke with or without the twist of lime.

Yes, you DO have a right to a lawyer when the police are questioning you. From the text of the actual Miranda decision:

If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. If the individual cannot obtain an attorney and he indicates that he wants one before speaking to police, they must respect his decision to remain silent.

SkinnyHead:Amusement: Say the alleged bomber says "I want a lawyer", does that stop them from questioning him? Most suspects would STFU or in the case stop writing. Then again this is from the Guardian.

Normally, all interrogation must cease whenever the suspect requests counsel, and if the request is not honored, any further statements made must be excluded at trial (except for impeachment). But when the suspect is being questioned under the public safety exception, they can continue questioning, even if the suspect requests counsel.

What if the answers provided to said questioning ended up having ZERO impact on public safety? (i.e lone wolf or no bombs etc).. will it negate this exception?Also if what you said is true than why does LE denied the request for counsel (as assumed in TFA) by Jokar if it has no bearing on his interrogation?

All they had to do was to tell him sure we'll get you a lawyer since you asked but keep in mind what you said so far can still be used in the court of law etc.... Why deny him his lawyer then?

Keizer_Ghidorah:Wouldn't be surprised, considering the loads of "ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT ACTION!! PRECEDENT FOR CRUSHING THE CONSTITUTION!! OBAMA MEETING LATER TO DISCUSS MAKING THIS NATIONAL POLICY!! NAZIS SOCIALIST COMMUNIST MONARCHIST MUSLIM SECOND AMENDMENT JACKBOOTS!!" retards that have popped up since then. Everything is a Reptilian Vatican conspiracy to these idiots.

Yeppers. Here's a good article about this:

Exception to Miranda Rule Is Rooted in Queens ArrestBy SAM ROBERTS

No straight line connects Benjamin Quarles and Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, or stretches from Bayside, Queens, to Copley Square in Boston, or links a largely forgotten gun charge in 1980 to a terrorist bombing this month that inflicted mass casualties and left three people dead. But one knotty legal thread does tie them together: the "public safety exception" to the Miranda warning against self-incrimination that the police are supposed to issue before questioning a suspect.

The issue is not whether suspects can be questioned before they are warned of their rights, but rather whether the answers are admissible in court. Prosecutors would have to prove that some imminent threat to public safety justified the failure to tell suspects of their right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer before being interrogated.

The public safety exception was carved out by Sol Wachtler, the former chief judge of New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, in 1982.The Court of Appeals upheld lower court rulings that a gun seized by the police was not admissible as evidence because officers had failed to read Mr. Quarles his Miranda rights beforehand. Judge Wachtler dissented. But the Queens district attorney at the time appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which ruled that "overriding considerations of public safety" might warrant questioning suspects without first advising them of their rights."I wrote an opinion, later embraced by the Supreme Court, that created an 'emergency exception' to Miranda, allowing the police to defuse a dangerous situation before administering the warning," Judge Wachtler recalled in a 2010 Op-Ed essay in The New York Times. "But resolving immediate emergencies is about as far as we should go in delaying the Miranda reading or creating exceptions to it."

The United States Supreme Court's 1984 ruling in the Quarles case is at the heart of any challenge to the admissibility of Mr. Tsarnaev's acknowledgment to federal agents, before he was advised of his rights, that he was involved in the Boston bombing. (The link between the Quarles case and the Boston attack was reported by DNAinfo.com.)

The Quarles case began in 1980 when a woman flagged down a patrol car in Queens and said an armed man had raped her and then fled inside a supermarket on Francis Lewis Boulevard. He was cornered there by police officers, who frisked him, handcuffed him and, spotting an empty shoulder holster, asked, "Where's the gun?"

Mr. Quarles gestured toward an empty carton of Wisk liquid detergent, where a .38-caliber snub nose pistol was recovered. Then an officer pulled a card from his wallet and read Mr. Quarles his rights.

"From the point of view of a criminal law defense attorney, you're dealing with a complaint that says he was in possession of a loaded weapon and he had an empty holster and that he admitted to police that the gun was his and that he had bought it in Florida, so what's left?" Steven J. Hyman, who represented Mr. Quarles, said in an interview.

"Then I'm sitting at the hearing on whether the statements were voluntary and was the gun properly seized, and an exceptionally honest police officer says they frisked him, handcuffed him, asked him where's the gun and then gave him the Miranda warning," Mr. Hyman recalled. "A case that was clearly a disaster from a defense point of view suddenly had issues."

The rape charge was dropped because the woman never went to court. A State Supreme Court justice said that because the weapon was seized after the suspect had been handcuffed and questioned about its whereabouts, it could not be admitted as evidence.

The prosecutor appealed. The ruling was unanimously upheld by the Appellate Division and then 4 to 3 by the Court of Appeals, but, in effect, was reversed by the United States Supreme Court, 5 to 4, on the basis of Judge Wachtler's exception.

The Supreme Court said the exception would not apply if the suspect was subject to "actual coercion." That was the finding later made by a state justice in Queens who decided - "much to my amazement," Mr. Hyman acknowledged - that a suspect could infer he was being coerced because he was surrounded at the time by a half-dozen police officers.

Mr. Hyman's surprise was reflected in Mr. Quarles's decision to a plea agreement, and he was eventually sentenced to probation."I haven't seen him since," Mr. Hyman said. (A Benjamin Quarles, who was born the same year as the defendant and was from Bayside, is listed in official records as having died in 2003.)

Mr. Hyman suggested that the application of the public safety exception to the Boston bombing case might be vulnerable in court. "The whole thrust of the Quarles case is spontaneity, legitimate instinct, not interrogation," he said.

"In Boston there could be some bombs still floating someplace, but it was no longer a situation of immediate danger," he added. "They ask him about accomplices, motives. That's not public safety; that's a criminal investigation. They have a right to ask. The question is, would it be admissible? I believe it is not."

Joanna Wright, a law clerk to a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and the author of a 2011 Columbia Law Review article on the public safety exception, said, "I suspect the government would argue that to the extent that Tsarnaev worked in concert with others or had information about potential future attacks, an imminent threat still existed and therefore the exemption was justified."

"The standard Quarles test," Ms. Wright added, "was whether or not the suspect answered questions posed by law enforcement that were 'reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety' and later case law suggests that the danger be imminent for the exception to apply."

All in all, what they did was absolutely legal, the question is whether anything they got from this will actually be admissible as evidence.

SuperNinjaToad:SkinnyHead: Amusement: Say the alleged bomber says "I want a lawyer", does that stop them from questioning him? Most suspects would STFU or in the case stop writing. Then again this is from the Guardian.

Normally, all interrogation must cease whenever the suspect requests counsel, and if the request is not honored, any further statements made must be excluded at trial (except for impeachment). But when the suspect is being questioned under the public safety exception, they can continue questioning, even if the suspect requests counsel.

What if the answers provided to said questioning ended up having ZERO impact on public safety? (i.e lone wolf or no bombs etc).. will it negate this exception?Also if what you said is true than why does LE denied the request for counsel (as assumed in TFA) by Jokar if it has no bearing on his interrogation?

All they had to do was to tell him sure we'll get you a lawyer since you asked but keep in mind what you said so far can still be used in the court of law etc.... Why deny him his lawyer then?

/not lawyer obviously just curious as an ignant citizen

you are making the assumption that they cared about using the statements in court.

This About That:Yeah, about that whole "rights of the accused" business: we can't afford to destroy that. It's not about the rights of some shiathead we all hate, it's about the rights of the rest of us. If you think you can't become "the accused" in an instant, think again. If you think law enforcement, prosecutors, grand juries, and the media can't destroy your life, reputation and livelihood, and take from you everything you love or have earned, while making your friends and neighbors and the public despise you, think again. If you think "the authorities" give a shiat about you or your rights, think again. Even considering how much nobody likes this moron, the "authorities", whoever that really was, did it wrong, and we can't afford to let it pass. Let's hope the courts make it plain that "the system" still finds it necessary to guarantee the rights of the accused, knowing that this will have to be forced upon law enforcement forever.

Well said. Bravo.

This is the whole point of the rule of law.

This is a "criminal case", IOW, someone allegedly violated the law, and now it appears that those who we trust as guardians of the law have *also* broken the law... in the name of "Justice"?

The principles of the Rule of Law MUST be upheld - and especially the rights of the accused. When those we have charged and entrusted to uphold and enforce the law violate laws and the rights of the accused, they lose the "moral high-ground", and when we, as a People, allow and accept these actions, we sow the seeds of the disintegration of our society.

We may as well be warring Mexican drug cartels.

Ignoring / abandoning the Rule of Law poses a far greater danger to society than any "terrorist" could hope to achieve.

Tatsuma:Keizer_Ghidorah: I thought they only "waived the Miranda" so they could get any information regarding possible locations of other explosive devices and other such immediate threat. When did they interrogate him on everything else?

No, we are talking about that case, which has a legal precedent set in 1949 which authorizes this as perfectly legal.

It's just a shiat mix of Glenn Greenwald + The Guardian + Farkers who have no idea what they are talking about

I bet most complaining about this also complained about the search in Watertown.

The "authorities" in your "homeland" aren't constrained by such inconveniences when it come to dealing with the subhumans, I take it?

This About That:Yeah, about that whole "rights of the accused" business: we can't afford to destroy that. It's not about the rights of some shiathead we all hate, it's about the rights of the rest of us. If you think you can't become "the accused" in an instant, think again. If you think law enforcement, prosecutors, grand juries, and the media can't destroy your life, reputation and livelihood, and take from you everything you love or have earned, while making your friends and neighbors and the public despise you, think again. If you think "the authorities" give a shiat about you or your rights, think again. Even considering how much nobody likes this moron, the "authorities", whoever that really was, did it wrong, and we can't afford to let it pass. Let's hope the courts make it plain that "the system" still finds it necessary to guarantee the rights of the accused, knowing that this will have to be forced upon law enforcement forever.

-=-I agree. It IS about the rights of the rest of us. As much as I want to see this guy hang, I want it to be legitimate.The cops have to do their job correctly so this guy doesn't get away with anything... legally.

king_nacho:HideAndGoFarkYourself: Triumph: But all the kid has to do is claim it's true. Then the onus is on the FBI to turn over every second of footage from the interrogations and prove otherwise. This kid's going to have defense attorneys lining up pro bono just to be the guy who got the Boston bomber case dismissed.

There is AMPLE evidence of his guilt in a multitude of crimes for which he'll spend the rest of his life in prison. If they throw out his interrogations, the cases won't be dismissed.

Do you people know how the criminal justice system works at all?!

it would only be interrogations that occurred prior to being provided with a lawyer, any of the evidence that otherwise links the guy to the bombs will still there. If the feds want, they'll give him the death penalty.

uh, that's what I just said. People are trying to say that the entire case will be dismissed, that's 100% not true.

I didn't read the above comments. I'm stupid for doing that but this being Fark.com most of it was probably trolling anyway. So here's a serious comment on how this stuff is going to play out.

There is a two pronged test for when the Miranda Warning must be given. Custody and Interrogation.

Let's break that down further.

Custody is defined as what a reasonable and prudent person would believe that there freedom to leave has been restricted. Since Asshole was in a hospital room and confined to a bed it would be impossible for him to leave the presence of LE. Based off my LE experience and the criminal justice system this was a custody, also add that he was formally placed under arrest anyway.

Second is interrogation. This is simply being asked specific questions about a criminal act. Obviously the FBI wasn't consulting him about his opinions on global warming and wanted information about the crimes he has been suspected of committing or was going to commit.

It's pretty clear there was custody and an interrogation. I'm also certain the FBI agents asking the questions knew that. Quite frankly they knew that they wouldn't "get away" with anything and were looking for info for counter-terrorism operations. They did this full knowing anything he said would get thrown in court against HIM, without being read his rights and then specifically waving them.

The FBI could get jammed up with certain information that might nullify anything they find against someone else. This is known as the fruits of the poisonous tree. Basically LE cannot benefit from the illegal act unless they can prove they would have found it some other means anyway (not always easy and sometimes impossible). This is where a lot of dirt bags get off on their crimes. Not because they are truly innocent but because of technical breach. It sucks for the victims but is what separates the U.S. from places like Iran and North Korea.

Also none of this will come up in a trial, it won't even be mentioned. In fact, the suspect simply refusing to ask questions has started to be deemed too incriminating for juries to know about and the issue is just danced around by both sides of the case.

This About That:ManateeGag: Why does it seem that people are rooting for the criminal that blew up and 8-year-old?

Rooting for correct behavior of "the authorities" and calling them on it when they refuse to so behave is not rooting for the criminal. If this criminal gets off on some technicality it doesn't vindicate him, it was a screwup on the part of people who knew better but were driven by their excess hormones instead of their judgement.

No, we are rooting for the truth...and for justice to prevail.. In short, we are rooting for him to tell the truth. A good lawyer, knowing his is guilty, will do his best to obfuscate that truth.

Pumpernickel bread:This About That: ManateeGag: Why does it seem that people are rooting for the criminal that blew up and 8-year-old?

Rooting for correct behavior of "the authorities" and calling them on it when they refuse to so behave is not rooting for the criminal. If this criminal gets off on some technicality it doesn't vindicate him, it was a screwup on the part of people who knew better but were driven by their excess hormones instead of their judgement.

No, we are rooting for the truth...and for justice to prevail.. In short, we are rooting for him to tell the truth. A good lawyer, knowing his is guilty, will do his best to obfuscate that truth.

Conversely, a "good" prosecutor, will do THEIR best to obfuscate the truth to favor conviction once charges have been laid.

This is the problem with an adversarial "justice" system. Once the accused has been charged and an attorney is in place, it becomes a battle of who can present the best case before the jury.

WireFire2:The FBI could get jammed up with certain information that might nullify anything they find against someone else. This is known as the fruits of the poisonous tree. Basically LE cannot benefit from the illegal act unless they can prove they would have found it some other means anyway (not always easy and sometimes impossible). This is where a lot of dirt bags get off on their crimes. Not because they are truly innocent but because of technical breach. It sucks for the victims but is what separates the U.S. from places like Iran and North Korea.

There are a couple of other wrinkles that make this irrelevant.

1. Inevitable discovery. If the police can show they'd have found the evidence anyway, then the "fruits" are admissible. In this case, they've got the other brother, Tamerlan, who's rights are not at issue here (he was too dead to make it a problem). They were going to search his home and effects anyway, so regardless of what Dzhokhar told them, if they found it as a result of their totally legal and entirely separate search of Tamerlan, then it's admissible.

2. Unrelated evidence. If any warrants were based on other evidence and NOT on Dzhokhar's interrogation--any other probable cause--then it is entirely admissible and it wouldn't matter what the "fruits" of the interrogation revealed.

3. Subsequent interrogation. Since Dzhokhar has been given his Miranda rights now, and has a lawyer, if he's asked about anything and provides information which leads to a totally lawful warrant that leads to the discovery of evidence--that evidence will be admissible.

No matter how bad people want to believe in the Hollywood "Technicality = instant release" it's just not going to happen. IF he said anything before he was Mirandized, and IF they ignored his request for a lawyer--it means almost nothing except that his lawyer will have to file a few more motions to have a little more excluded before trial.

Pumpernickel bread:This About That: ManateeGag: Why does it seem that people are rooting for the criminal that blew up and 8-year-old?

Rooting for correct behavior of "the authorities" and calling them on it when they refuse to so behave is not rooting for the criminal. If this criminal gets off on some technicality it doesn't vindicate him, it was a screwup on the part of people who knew better but were driven by their excess hormones instead of their judgement.

No, we are rooting for the truth...and for justice to prevail.. In short, we are rooting for him to tell the truth. A good lawyer, knowing his is guilty, will do his best to obfuscate that truth.

Yes, we all are. However, providing him with a lawyer, as the law requires, and following whatever other procedures are required by law is the proper and necessary way to proceed. There seems to have been some confusion as to whether or not someone we really despise or think might be really dangerous might not be entitled to protections under the law. Do you think an exception to the rule of law should be made in this case? How about the next case? How about your case?

This About That:Pumpernickel bread: This About That: ManateeGag: Why does it seem that people are rooting for the criminal that blew up and 8-year-old?

Rooting for correct behavior of "the authorities" and calling them on it when they refuse to so behave is not rooting for the criminal. If this criminal gets off on some technicality it doesn't vindicate him, it was a screwup on the part of people who knew better but were driven by their excess hormones instead of their judgement.

No, we are rooting for the truth...and for justice to prevail.. In short, we are rooting for him to tell the truth. A good lawyer, knowing his is guilty, will do his best to obfuscate that truth.

Yes, we all are. However, providing him with a lawyer, as the law requires, and following whatever other procedures are required by law is the proper and necessary way to proceed. There seems to have been some confusion as to whether or not someone we really despise or think might be really dangerous might not be entitled to protections under the law. Do you think an exception to the rule of law should be made in this case? How about the next case? How about your case?

I am in support of whatever avenue brings the truth to light. Might sound like heresy to those who grew up with the U.S. justice system, but I am in favor of period of police questioning without a lawyer present. You are most likely to get the truth in that instance. Much more often than not It will help to exonerate the truly innocent and convict the truly guilty.

This whole fiasco is exactly why I wanted for him to be killed during capture.

ManateeGag:Why does it seem that people are rooting for the criminal that blew up and 8-year-old?

It seems that way to you because you're incapable of understanding why anyone would disagree with you about anything, therefore you're left assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is either stupid or evil. That's why.

Good luck, the Feds answer only to their congress budget comity for next year's funding.

Now being detained in a Federal facility he can be transferred to any location of choice and "buh-bye"

The detention sections of the NDAA begin by "affirm[ing]" that the authority of the President under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), a joint resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person (including a U.S. citizen[13][21]) "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity"

AKA - no rights, for any citizen, on any soil, for any reason under the auspice of terror.

Sigh....... let me put it this way, 'Merica - If you deny one person, just ONE person, their basic rights to a fair trial, access to legal help, etc etc., then you're no better than the kangaroo courts set up by the taliban.

Just remember what it is you're supposed to be fighting for; freedom, wasn't it?

However much you hate what they've alleged to have done (and - remember - it's only alleged until proven in a court of law), whether it be terrorism, child murder or whatever, then you should be fighting tooth and nail to make sure they get that fair trial.

So, almost everyone here is still screaming about how the authorities are crushing rights and throwing away justice. Do any of you, besides Tatsuma, know if this "interrogation" happened after they grilled him for possible locations of more bombs and any other accomplices (which constitute immediate threat and must be dealt with quickly), or do you all think that that was the horrible Constitution-destroying law-crushing act that will make him walk back to his homeland free and unfettered? Because I've read this entire thread and no one save for Tatsuma has said anything about what exactly went on and is going on, all I see is frantic frothing about jackboots and imperialism and government destroying rights.

Weaver95: more and more people are starting to come around to the idea that if you 'hide' behind your rights then you MUST be guilty.

You really are starting to slip close to Alex Jones territory, Weav.

Triumph:But all the kid has to do is claim it's true. Then the onus is on the FBI to turn over every second of footage from the interrogations and prove otherwise. This kid's going to have defense attorneys lining up pro bono just to be the guy who got the Boston bomber case dismissed.

I'll be one of the first to jump on law enforcement and the government for abusing an individual's Constitutional rights...but this is much ado about nothing.

Before everyone gets up in arms, there is a Public Safety Exception to Miranda. If law enforcement feels there's a threat to public safety they don't need to mirandize a suspect to ask those questions. In this case, it was unknown if there were any other co-conspirators, if any other bombs were set up...etc. Of course, if they asked questions outside the scope of public safety those questions and any evidence acquired would be tossed (fruit of the poisonous tree).

Doesn't really matter...the government has plenty of evidence without talking to the kid. Physical, eyewitness, etc.

PoRL:Sigh....... let me put it this way, 'Merica - If you deny one person, just ONE person, their basic rights to a fair trial, access to legal help, etc etc., then you're no better than the kangaroo courts set up by the taliban.

Just remember what it is you're supposed to be fighting for; freedom, wasn't it?

However much you hate what they've alleged to have done (and - remember - it's only alleged until proven in a court of law), whether it be terrorism, child murder or whatever, then you should be fighting tooth and nail to make sure they get that fair trial.

Okay, I'll bite. The key words in your post are now in bold. He is not on trial yet. The entire Miranda process / right to an attorney speech is about ensuring that anything the suspect says to police can be used against them in court -- i.e. that you cannot coerce a confession and use it to convict them.

That's not the scenario here. Why? Because if you have enough information to convict a suspect regardless of what they tell you, and if you don't plan to use anything they tell you against them, then the same concerns regarding interrogation do not apply. Yes he has a right to counsel to help him prepare his defense against the charges based on the other evidence they've obtained, but he does not have a right to counsel to help him avoid a public safety based interrogation. If he'd simply kept his mouth closed when they asked their questions they couldn't have tortured him, but nothing obligated him to speak. The cops decided they wanted the information more than they wanted an admissible confession, and that was their choice to make.

Now, if they try to use ANYTHING from their talk with him (prior to the arrival of the magistrate) in court I'll have major due process concerns. But I suspect they won't say a word about it as they don't want to hurt their conviction. The case will be built on video tape, public tips from the video tape, forensic evidence, and the testimony of the cops who found him, etc.

gblive:Actually that is not how all the media has reported information on the "public safety exception" - the media reports appear to state that they do not have to get the suspect a lawyer. You may want to tell the NYT, Wash Post, CNN, etc. they are wrong..... oh well, we are all on Fark anyway because the MSM regularly is wrong.

Not sure whether you're implying that something said on CNN is authoritative enough to refute a claim, but if somehow you are, I'll direct you to Obama's most recent comments on the topic.

HideAndGoFarkYourself:SkinnyHead: He's not getting released on no "technicality." If they violated his rights by ignoring a request for counsel, his statements will be excluded at trial, that's all. Unless he tries to testify that he didn't do it. Then his statements can be used against him. That's my assessment, anyways.

No. If they're suppressed, they're suppressed. They can't be brought in unless the defense opens the door.

If the defendant testifies at trial that he didn't do it, that opens the door. A confession that is suppressed because of a Miranda violation can still be used for impeachment.

SuperNinjaToad:SkinnyHead: Amusement: Say the alleged bomber says "I want a lawyer", does that stop them from questioning him? Most suspects would STFU or in the case stop writing. Then again this is from the Guardian.

Normally, all interrogation must cease whenever the suspect requests counsel, and if the request is not honored, any further statements made must be excluded at trial (except for impeachment). But when the suspect is being questioned under the public safety exception, they can continue questioning, even if the suspect requests counsel.

What if the answers provided to said questioning ended up having ZERO impact on public safety? (i.e lone wolf or no bombs etc).. will it negate this exception?Also if what you said is true than why does LE denied the request for counsel (as assumed in TFA) by Jokar if it has no bearing on his interrogation?

All they had to do was to tell him sure we'll get you a lawyer since you asked but keep in mind what you said so far can still be used in the court of law etc.... Why deny him his lawyer then?

/not lawyer obviously just curious as an ignant citizen

Whether the public safety exception is justified will be determined objectively, by what was known to law enforcement at the time of questioning, not by the answers given by the suspect. And when a suspect requests an attorney during questioning, that usually ends the questioning. They hardly ever actually provide one during questioning, because lawyers will always tell them to stop talking.

The suppression of evidence under Miranda is one of the dumbest, most asinine rules in modern American law (and that rule has a LOT of competition).

Of course, Farkers recite the Miranda suppression rule like gospel. So well-trained!

Suppressing evidence hides the truth. The evidence doesn't cease to exist, but we're expected to join in the mass delusion that it somehow vanished. It's yet another example of the core principle of Statism -- governmental dictates must always trump reality.

Suppressing evidence also punishes society -- it allows known and provable criminals loose to harm more people.

It also does nothing to solve the actual problem of cops violating people's rights. They have immunity from the people whose rights they violate (unless it's so severe that even the State won't protect them).

When a cop violate's someone's rights (which occurs hourly), the appropriate solution is to let the victim sue the cop.

Let the evidence of criminal guilt be heard, but make the one who violated the accused's rights be the one to pay for his actions.

Everything about the current Miranda-immunity regime is exactly wrong. As usual.

Weaver95:SkinnyHead:The most important information to get out of him would be his Jihadi connections, so they can track down others who might be planning similar attacks. That's why they were questioning him according to the public safety exception. Public safety exception allows them to ignore requests for counsel.

oh I don't think there was any further threat to public safety at that point. the bombs weren't all that sophisticated and the cops knew it by that point. plus they'd searched his house and didn't find anyone else in their little plot. also, given that the city was in lock down damage (if any) would have been minimal at best.

as I said before tho, we're going to throw our rulebooks out on this one. we'll pay lip service to our procedures, then fry him but good. we'll also ignore the damage we've done to our rights and try to tell ourselves that it's all for some vague concept of 'safety' and 'greater good'. meanwhile we'll be terrified of parades, public gatherings and holiday celebrations.

skinink:Before some of you say it was okay for the authorities to run roughshod over the law, you should realize that things like Miranda rights came about because some criminal took this issue to court. Your going down a slippery slope to think you can judge who does and does not get protection under the law. Same for right to free speech which is why you see the ACLU defending all kinds of evil people and their rights.

The fact that so many people can't grasp this concept blows my mind. Have a little farking foresight people.

Warlordtrooper:The Muthaship: FTA- There is zero legal or ethical justification for denying a suspect in custody this fundamental right

Was there still a danger that he was going to die at the time? If so, I'm okay with trying to find out if there were other present threats he knew of, even if it meant infringing on his 5th amendment rights. Not sure about that being a legal justification, but it seems like an ethical one IMO.

The bills of rights is not a list of suggestions.

I think we're going to need to translate it into 'text speak' for people to get it these days.